EPTThe LiquidLegends Lounge - Page 587
| Forum Index > The Shopkeeper′s Inn |
|
Numy
South Africa35471 Posts
| ||
|
jcarlsoniv
United States27922 Posts
On September 23 2015 23:17 killerdog wrote: Wouldn't you just do sqrt((La1-La2)*40k/360 + (Lo1-Lo2)*40k/360), as long as you take into account that if La1-La2 > 180, you invert them. This is the Excel formula I found: =ACOS(COS(RADIANS(90-Lat1)) *COS(RADIANS(90-Lat2)) +SIN(RADIANS(90-Lat1)) *SIN(RADIANS(90-Lat2)) *COS(RADIANS(Long1-Long2))) *6371 which lines up with the haversine formula here The interesting part is tying that into customer data and then building further logic off of that. | ||
|
Numy
South Africa35471 Posts
| ||
|
jcarlsoniv
United States27922 Posts
Also, the more interesting thing comes when I take all of the data and map it out. | ||
MoonBear
Straight outta Johto18973 Posts
On September 23 2015 23:42 killerdog wrote: Every point has a latitude and a longtitude, so if you have two points you should have Latitude1Longitude1 and Latitude2Longitude2 no? Shouldn't be necessary to do any more then that since by definition latitude and longitude are at a right angle to each other It's a bit over simplistic because the surface of the Earth is curved. A more accurate methodology would be to use the Vincenty's formulae. On September 23 2015 23:53 Numy wrote: Well the globe part only matters when you dealing with big differences. For an approximation within a city it doesn't really matter. That's what I assumed you were doing which I guess isn't that great an assumption. If you want to use a vector methodology for a quick and dirty calculation, you'll need to use normal vectors. | ||
|
Numy
South Africa35471 Posts
| ||
|
Seuss
United States10536 Posts
| ||
|
jcarlsoniv
United States27922 Posts
On September 23 2015 23:53 Numy wrote: Well the globe part only matters when you dealing with big differences. For an approximation within a city it doesn't really matter. That's what I assumed you were doing which I guess isn't that great an assumption. Nah, looking at interstate differences. Vector calc would still probably get pretty close, but not accurate enough for my tastes. I'd get into more detail if this wasn't for work/customer data =) | ||
|
Numy
South Africa35471 Posts
On September 23 2015 23:54 Seuss wrote: The fun thing about the Earth is that it actually isn't spherical. It's good enough for approximations. Just need to throw in that you using that assumption. | ||
|
MoonBear
Straight outta Johto18973 Posts
On September 23 2015 23:56 Numy wrote: It's good enough for approximations. Just need to throw in that you using that assumption. Some things in the real world aren't like homework in class where you can Jedi hand-wave away appoximations with a disclaimer. Sometimes you actually need the right answer. | ||
|
Numy
South Africa35471 Posts
Actually find what you just said incredibly offensive and rude. So much of what science is is based on making the correct assumptions to get to your approximation. Most of the models we use to deal with micro systems are used because they give the best approximation as accurately determining the 100% real answer is just too hard to do. Just because you work in a field where that isn't a case don't go throw snide remarks at other people. | ||
|
jcarlsoniv
United States27922 Posts
On September 24 2015 00:02 Numy wrote: Lol some things in the real world are exactly like that, as someone doing Engineering with friends that are working as Engineers you'd be amazed MoonBear. Amazed. It's often far too hard to calculate exactly what is going on and the differences between the approximation and reality are too small to matter. Yeah...that totally makes me feel a lot better On September 24 2015 00:02 Numy wrote: Actually find what you just said incredibly offensive and rude. So much of what science is is based on making the correct assumptions to get to your approximation. Most of the models we use to deal with micro systems are used because they give the best approximation as accurately determining the 100% real answer is just too hard to do. Just because you work in a field where that isn't a case don't go throw snide remarks at other people. I mean, in my case, the correct answer is there and achievable if I'm just not too lazy to do the work to calculate it. And even so, as mentioned, the Earth isn't a perfect sphere, so my calculation is still somewhat of an approximation. But it's also more accurate than vector. | ||
|
Numy
South Africa35471 Posts
On September 24 2015 00:06 jcarlsoniv wrote: Yeah...that totally makes me feel a lot better Haha it's not too bad. When you dealing with something that has hundreds and hundreds of elements you don't want to sit there trying to factor in every element. It's easier to figure out what most likely(99.9%) doesn't effect it then deal with the elements that do. That just means that technically your answer isn't the "correct one" but it's close enough to work. There are general heuristics that people tend to use for different systems to know when it's good enough and when you need to be more precise. Also ye I get you can prob figure it out. I'm just upset over MB's tone more than anything. | ||
|
Alaric
France45622 Posts
On September 24 2015 00:01 MoonBear wrote: Some things in the real world aren't like homework in class where you can Jedi hand-wave away appoximations with a disclaimer. Sometimes you actually need the right answer. There's never friction when motion is discussed. | ||
|
ComaDose
Canada10357 Posts
On September 23 2015 08:32 Crusnik wrote: Winning may not be the only thing that matters, but its damn close to it. That reminds me of another motto: "money isnt everything, but its way ahead of what ever is in second." On September 23 2015 10:15 Crusnik wrote: I know what your name is goober, I have TL+  I just cant add you because SE is pants on head when it comes to their search/add function. Both players need to be online -.- huh how TL+ tell you his name? Am i missing a joke? Staying on the safe side of approximations is pretty standard in the industry unless you work for NASA | ||
|
sung_moon
United States10110 Posts
On September 23 2015 20:02 AlterKot wrote: As far as anectodal evidence goes, both me and one friend did exact same thing - randomly discovered wrestling (before this year all I knew about it was that "it's fake") and it instantly became one of the biggest hobbies (for me only League is bigger). Although I spent all year trying different promotions and from what I can tell it was pretty much the best time to get into wrestling (especially with Lucha Underground), I'm not sure how long would I last if I only watched WWE :p Speaking of which, LUCHA UNDERGROUND IS GETTING SECOND SEASON HYPE As far as WWE goes, Night of Champions was actually the first time since I started watching that I was really turned off from WWE. Like, I literally didn't care what happens next evening on Raw, or how the story will go, or anything really - I only watched Paige's, Natalya's and New Day's segments and I feel like that's all I want from WWE right now. On the other hand, I recently got really hooked with Pro Wrestling Guerrilla so catching up on that is currently the priority. Also, I'm pretty sure even if you're a Network subscriber you still have to pay for PPVs? Or did that change and they were only refering to price of subscription with their "9.99" segments? It's literally the best. Xavier's YT videos are amazing, and Paige has been my favorite diva since the good ol Lita days (Stacy was up there too). I didn't catch Night of Champions though. | ||
|
MoonBear
Straight outta Johto18973 Posts
On September 24 2015 00:02 Numy wrote: Lol some things in the real world are exactly like that, as someone doing Engineering with friends that are working as Engineers you'd be amazed MoonBear. Amazed. It's often far too hard to calculate exactly what is going on and the differences between the approximation and reality are too small to matter. Note that I said sometimes. This depends a lot on the level of precision and accuracy involved, as well as whether there is an existing established method that solves the same problem in a better way that's still cost-efficient (in particular, the ability to use computing power to solve problems). That's not to say that you never make assumptions or simplify, but that you need to choose an appropriate time and place to do so. For example, you wouldn't bother using stats tables when you have a computer to just solve it and not have to give up accuracy needlessly right? And likewise, if there's a formula or methodology to doing something more accurately than the back of a napkin calculation that's still cost-efficient then you go for that. Doing it right the first time if it's not more costly to do so also removes any edge cases where a third party using what you created doesn't make horrendous mistakes because they weren't aware or couldn't appreciate your assumptions. A lot of users of technical applications may not be knowledgable in the area and just needs answers they can process. You see stories in the news where a companies fk up because someone didn't appreciate something minor. And if you can eliminate that by doing things right the first time then that's good. On September 24 2015 00:02 Numy wrote: Actually find what you just said incredibly offensive and rude. So much of what science is is based on making the correct assumptions to get to your approximation. Most of the models we use to deal with micro systems are used because they give the best approximation as accurately determining the 100% real answer is just too hard to do. Just because you work in a field where that isn't a case don't go throw snide remarks at other people. Um. Again. To reiterate the point, you make approximations depending on the level of accuracy and precision required, as well as the cost-effectiveness of your solution. Doings things like measuring distance more accurately for customer tracking isn't some experimental physics here where you're exploring unknown depths. It's literally just using a better formula in Excel. | ||
|
Numy
South Africa35471 Posts
| ||
|
Crusnik
United States5378 Posts
On September 24 2015 00:27 ComaDose wrote: That reminds me of another motto: "money isnt everything, but its way ahead of what ever is in second." huh how TL+ tell you his name? Am i missing a joke? Staying on the safe side of approximations is pretty standard in the industry unless you work for NASA He said it before, so I just searched and filtered. Also, Yogi Berra passed this morning, I move that we be filled with Yogisms today. Remember, it isn't over til it's over. | ||
|
Alaric
France45622 Posts
It's useful but I hate javascript. Even more than css. | ||
| ||
